Road Riporter 10.3 Autumn Equinox 2005

Autumn Equinox 2005. Volume 10 # 3

Victory in the Lost River Valley By Lahsha Johnston

Inside… Victory in the Lost River Valley, by Lahsha Johnston. Pages 3-5 Policy Primer: Data Quality Act, by Amy Atwood. Pages 6-7 Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 8-9 Odes to Roads, by Scott Stouder. Pages 10-11 Get with the Program: Restoration & Transportation Program Updates. Pages 12-13 Biblio Notes: Roads in the Brazilian Amazon, by Adam Switalski. Pages 14-16 Legislative Update: The Highway Spending Bill. Page 17 Regional Reports. Pages 18-19 Citizen Spotlight: The Sky Island Alliance, by Cathy Adams. Pages 20-21 Around the Office, Membership info. Pages 22-23

Check out our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org The fragile apline meadows and grasslands of the Lost River Valley have been, for now, spared the intrusion of a motorized mega-route. Photo by Matt Leidecker.

T

he times they are a changing (well, sort of), at the Federal Highways Department (FHWA). On August 10, 2005, the President signed the long-overdue, oft-extended six year federal highway spending bill. This bill includes one significant beneficial change from previous highways bills, continuing a trend toward more ecologically sound highway planning that began in 1992. But it is also, as always, loaded with ecologically damaging pork projects. While we review key provisions of the bill on page 17, some overall trends are worth noting here. For the first time, the new bill provides direct funding for wildlife crossing structures across highways. Such structures can increase habitat connectivity and reduce collisions – saving both human and animal lives. The bill also provides funding to improve fish passage under roads. These provisions are historic, though in truth, they are long overdue. Other countries, including our immediate neighbor to the north, have far outspent and out-researched the United States in devising more effective mitigation structures to reduce the impacts of roads on wildlife. On the bright side, numerous projects are now underway in the U.S., including the reconstruction of a road right here in Montana that will include more than 40 wildlife crossing structures over a 60-mile stretch of highway. We will work with other conservationists to assess the true amount of funding available for wildlife and aquatic mitigation, and to ensure that such money is used to develop ecologically sound structures that will help reduce the impacts of highways on wildlife. But it is important to remember that mitigation is not the same as prevention or restoration. Wildlands CPR’s first priority will always be to prevent new road construction in ecologically sensitive places, since mitigation can only reduce, but not eliminate, habitat fragmentation and other ecological impacts of highways. While the name is pretty: “the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU), the bill maintains the status quo on highway spending and funds $24 billion worth of pork projects, while tossing a bone to conservation interests to address the impacts of some of these projects. Wildlands CPR worked with a small group of activists from Washington DC and the west to promote some of the good provisions, while also fighting the bad provisions in the bill. Unfortunately, we were not able to stop all of the funding for bad earmarks, including three ecologically devastating, and extraordinarily expensive projects proposed in Alaska. Our efforts now will turn to fighting the implementation of such projects.. As we were going to press, the New York Times editorialized about one way we could both reduce the highway spending pork and help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. They recommended that the states give back some of the earmarked pork project money allocated in SAFETEA-LU. We support the idea, and think it’s an ideal way for other states to lend a financial hand to the Gulf Coast residents as they deal with the fallout of the hurricane, and for people throughout the country to show that we really can set priorities about what’s important. We hope that some good can come from this tragic and truly catastrophic event by helping Americans refocus our efforts on addressing poverty, injustice and environmental degradation right here in our own backyard. Our thoughts and best wishes go to everyone affected by this storm.

P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org

Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing roads and limiting motorized recreation. We are a national clearinghouse and network, providing citizens with tools and strategies to fight road construction, deter motorized recreation, and promote road removal and revegetation. Director Bethanie Walder Development Director Tom Petersen Restoration Program Coordinator Marnie Criley Science Coordinator Adam Switalski Transportation Policy Organizer Jason Kiely Program Assistant Cathy Adams Newsletter Dan Funsch & Marianne Zugel Interns & Volunteers Jess Bernard, Katherine Court, Sonya Germann, Laura Harris, Gordon Willson Naranjo Board of Directors Amy Atwood, Karen DiBari, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William Geer, Dave Havlick, Cara Nelson, Sonya Newenhouse, Matt Skroch Advisory Committee Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach, Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

Lost River panorama. Photo by Matt Leidecker

2

© 2005 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Victory in the Lost River Valley By Lahsha Johnston

T

he Lost River Valley is iconic of the West’s broad, open valleys flanked by steep, dramatic mountain ranges. High elevation peaks dotted with snow fields and cirques holding small lakes sweep down to sage and grass covered hills. Below these majestic peaks, meandering river channels intertwine with meadows in this central Idaho setting. And this summer, in a victory for rural values and quiet recreation, the Lost River and Pahsimeroi Valleys were spared from becoming home to the nation’s largest off-road vehicle route and the first such route to propose state management of federal lands.

Background In 2002 the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) proposed the Lost River Trail, a 460-mile off-road vehicle route to be built on public lands managed by the Salmon-Challis National Forest and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In addition, the IDPR requested sole management authority over a two-mile wide corridor the route’s entire length. The proposed route ran from the city of Arco north to Challis and beyond, and on both sides of the Lost River Range, with two portions crossing through the heart of these mountains. Opponents succeeded in defeating this ill-conceived mega-route by working together. Cutting through misinformation and rhetoric, The Wilderness Society and its Idaho allies revealed the ugly facts: (1) the ecological and social impacts created by increased off-road vehicle traffic would change the way of life for area ranchers and residents; (2) the unfunded maintenance and enforcement costs to municipalities and counties, as well as federal agencies, greatly outweighed the cheery forecast of the benefits that a mega-route would bring to struggling rural economies.

Considering the Impacts Our concerns over the off-road vehicle route included impacts to the environment, wildlife, Wilderness Study Areas, noise, erosion, habitat fragmentation, weeds, fire, water, route proliferation, enforcement, maintenance, monitoring, rehabilitation, and general route management including state control. The effects of a route this large, however, go far beyond the immediate corridor and actual route — cumulative impacts to resources and other forms of recreation enjoyed on adjacent public lands would be significant and irreversible. We also knew there would likely be increased demands

Rural values like peace, quiet, and (the lack of) traffic were all threatened by the proposed route. Photo by Matt Leidecker.

placed on federal agencies and local government services, conflicts with private property owners and recreation, and impacts to the local economy. Many people shared our concerns, but did not understand the federal planning process and agency regulations that govern offroad vehicle use. Federal law requires preparing an in-depth analysis of the environmental, social, and economic consequences of any major federal action in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Such an analysis must include consideration of alternatives to the proposal. Since the IDPR is a state agency they were not required to undertake this type of extensive analysis, however, because their proposal required the BLM and Forest Service to sanction the route across federal land, we argued that an EIS should be prepared. When the federal agencies would not commit to an EIS, we made it very clear that we were prepared to seek immediate legal recourse to force them to do so.

An Agency’s (Blind) Ambition The IDPR was convinced that if given the opportunity, they could manage off-road vehicle use better than the federal agencies. The opinions of federal agency staff were mixed. Some thought that a designated route would help resolve conflicts over increasing motorized recreation, or that money from the IDPR would provide resources to make up for decreasing federal budgets. And, since IDPR was proposing the route, state officials would bear the brunt of criticism and public scrutiny. Finally, no one had developed any alternatives to the large route concept. It was the only game in town. In addition to being the only alternative proposed, the IDPR called it a demonstration project to be used to monitor, evaluate, and test potential management strategies for motorized recreation in the state of Idaho. The IDPR identified the proposed “Lost River Trail” as the first of several such demonstration projects around the state. Then last

— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

3

— continued from page 3 — April the IDPR State Director, Rick Collignon, resigned. A big proponent of the Lost River Trail, he left behind a cash strapped agency with low employee morale — in a poor position to expand their management portfolio with the addition of a large off-road vehicle route.

Selling Snake Oil The IDPR compared the Lost River Trail to the Paiute Trail in Utah in order to gain the support of business leaders. The Paiute Trail consists of 275 miles of designated routes and hosts an estimated 47,000 ORV riders annually. Paiute Trail promoters steer riders to an additional 2,500 trail miles on surrounding public lands, tying 16 local communities into the “unofficial” trail system. Similarly, IDPR called for the Lost River Trail to link the communities of Arco, Mackay, and Challis, envisioning trail expansion to reach 12 more communities. And like the Paiute Trail, the Lost River Trail was touted as a revenue source of millions for local economies by attracting riders from across the country. For a while, this promise of prosperity seemed to work. For example, the Custer County Commissioners were in favor of the route and had been convinced it would be an economic savior to their struggling communities. But these comparisons were based on anecdotal opinions obtained from Utah businesses along the Paiute Trail, not on any economic data or analysis.

Fuzzy Math The start-up budget for the Lost River Trail project was $172,500, to be used for parking, rest-rooms, information kiosks, cattle guards, signs, maps and fencing needs. As one local citizen estimated, “The cost of purchasing a special ORV guard or a standard 8-foot cattle guard and wings is somewhere between $500-800.” Add an estimated $600/install for a backhoe, foundation material, hand labor, etc. Based on the budget allocation, this citizen commented “you will only have enough money for five cattle guards. I can count at least 20 allotments along the proposed trail just from Arco to Willow Creek Summit that will be affected.”

Photo by Matt Leidecker.

In addition, the IDPR proposal called for only two law enforcement officers to patrol the entire 460-mile route. Local communities, counties, road and fire districts were asked to provide maintenance, search and rescue, ambulance, fire, law enforcement and manage access points with existing budgets. The BLM and Forest Service would receive no additional resources to manage thousands of new riders expected to use the route. And, human nature being what it is, those riders would also use the more than 3,000 miles of routes accessible from the official Lost River Trail.

Listening to the Locals In Idaho, The Wilderness Society has a reputation for working with people in local communities that are directly affected by federal policies. By meeting with small groups of ranchers and other community leaders, we discovered ways to work together. Some of the first things we provided were maps of the proposed off-road vehicle route. This helped us acquire very specific on-the-ground information as to the potential impacts of the route. In return, we shared our knowledge and

Information requested from the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) • Baseline data on wildlife habitat, noxious weeds, dispersed use, current use, and economic data • Ground truthing data, surveys, and the methodology used for the 2002 surveys on potential trail routes • IDPR’s inventory of existing roads and trails and the GPS database of all routes that intersect the proposed trail • IDPR’s draft charter for the proposed Citizen’s Advisory Committee • All documents relating to costs of the trail, including advertising, signage, enforcement, resource restoration, search and rescue, noxious weed control, education, trail maintenance, construction and reconstruction, monitoring, restrooms, parking, kiosks, and maps • The IDPR 2002 budget, including funding and expenditures on motorized versus non-motorized recreation • Cost estimates for county and local government services that IDPR expects these entities will absorb • Letters of support from city, county and state officials • Minutes, records, presentation materials and handouts from all inter-agency steering committee meetings • All information gathered about the Paiute Trail ORV route

4

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

expertise on federal land policy, agency planning requirements, and opportunities for public involvement. We concentrated our efforts on educating those most directly affected, developing relationships with private property owners, ranchers, local governments, and community leaders. We worked to dissuade the Forest Service and BLM of their initial support for the proposal. And, we organized a coalition of other conservation, hunting, wildlife, and recreation interests. The IDPR abandoned the route proposal as a direct result of our efforts. Over the last few years we have developed a greater understanding of the values we share with many of the residents of these small

Everyone agrees that existing off-road vehicle use needs better management.

communities. They value their way of life, which includes wildlife, peace and quiet, and low traffic. Everyone agrees that existing off-road vehicle use needs better management. Designating a 460-mile route through the heart of this remote landscape would not necessarily result in better management. Nor would it necessarily result in overall economic benefits to the local communities. Local citizens’ growing understanding of these threats prompted them to publicly oppose and thus help stop this proposal.

For now, the Lost River Valley will be spared ORV damage. Photo by Keith Hammer.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

In their own words “I’m a cattle rancher using the range in which this trail will be placed. We have to have an average of five years’ study to simply place a water trough or move a bit of fence. If this trail is allowed with the minimal amount of study, I would seriously recommend that grazing permittees file suit against the BLM and Forest Service for harassment and discrimination between multiple use users.” – public comment sent to IDPR

Do It Right the Next Time The BLM and Forest Service should complete a comprehensive route designation process for all lands under their jurisdiction in the Lost River Valley. The agencies should work together to analyze the environmental and social impacts of hundreds of miles of user-created renegade routes. We expect that communities are looking at a variety of options to promote recreation and boost local economies — our recommendation is for the IDPR to work with them to develop a variety of sustainable recreation opportunities that take into consideration the quality of life and values that are important to these rural residents. IDPR should also use the income they generate from off-road vehicle registrations to establish a mandatory state-wide off-road vehicle safety, education and enforcement program. Local elected officials such as county commissioners consistently receive complaints from private landowners and ranchers who experience off-road vehicle trespass spilling over from neighboring public lands. Federal land management agencies should negotiate cooperative agreements that fund county sheriffs to enforce off-road vehicle rules on federal public lands. Working together we can find solutions that are good for the landscape and the local communities. — Lahsha Johnston is the Regional Conservation Associate in the Idaho Office of The Wilderness Society. Since 1995 she has worked closely with diverse groups from other conservation, recreation, government, and other interests on a wide range of issues and projects involving wilderness and public lands management.

5

Wildlands CPR Policy Primer

This Policy Primer is a column designed to highlight the ins & outs of a specific road or off-road vehicle policy. If you have a policy you’d like us to investigate, let us know!

Data Quality Act By Amy Atwood

D

uring the last five years, the Bush Administration has systematically attacked scientific integrity in all aspects of government regulation. They have relied on junk science, innuendo, and anecdotes to support industry-friendly environmental policies or weakened environmental safeguards. This trend has only increased as the Administration’s friends have increasingly turned to a four-year-old law with a misleading name, the Information Quality Act (IQA), in their ongoing effort to weaken federal environmental regulations.

IQA in Theory and Practice

The IQA (also known as the Data Quality Act), a seemingly innocuous law passed as a rider to a 2001 appropriations bill, required the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish guidelines for federal agencies to maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the public. OMB’s guidelines were promulgated in 2002, and, in addition to requiring federal agencies to adopt their own IQA rules, require agencies that disseminate so-called “influential” information to provide a “high degree of transparency about data and methods to facilitate reproducibility of such information by qualified third parties.” In a few cases, the IQA has been rightfully used to stymie agencies’ reliance on clearly flawed data. In response to an IQA challenge filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Fish and Wildlife Service was forced to acknowledge it had consis-

tently relied on flawed habitat and population data concerning the habits of the highly endangered Florida panther. In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency routinely makes minor data corrections as a result of petitions submitted to the agency pursuant to the IQA. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the IQA has been used by industry groups and political interests to challenge agency data that supports common sense regulation in many areas, including the environment and public health. For example, in 2003, the Salt Institute, an association of salt producers and manufacturers, submitted an IQA petition to the Department of Health and Human Services challenging dietary guidelines that — surprise — urged Americans to lower their intake of salt in order to reduce the risk of hypertension. As another example, in deliberating whether to list the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act, Julie MacDonald, a Department of Interior (DOI) political appointee with no formal biological education or training, tried to quash data showing that the greater sage grouse needs diverse sagebrush ecosystems to survive, on the basis that such information violated the IQA. While the IQA cases brought by industry (on issues as varied as salt, asbestos and pesticides) have weakened environmental and human health provisions, the few cases filed on behalf of the environment have changed little on the ground. In the case of the panther data, the FWS admitted the data was flawed, but then announced that no agency decision or biological review would be reexamined as a result of PEER’s ostensibly “successful” IQA challenge. Clearly, there are some problems with the IQA.

Good science shows the benefits of restoring roads through techniques such as installing this sediment wash. Is there a place for science in the Bush Administration? Photo by Marnie Criley.

6

In fact, these examples only hint at the Act’s problems and raise doubts about using the IQA at all as a tool to protect the environment. Rather, a serious overhaul or repeal might be in order. To begin with, the standards imposed on agencies by the IQA — i.e., that they ensure the “quality,” “objectivity,” “utility,” and “integrity” of information that they disseminate to the public — are utterly vague and totally subjective. There is no direction as to what

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

was actually intended by such terms, since the IQA was passed as a rider to a 2001 appropriations bill without any hearings or Congressional debate, and therefore lacks any legislative history. In addition, when it comes to data that informs decisions that impact the environment, the Act has been read to impose higher standards for scientific information than those found in our nation’s existing environmental laws. For example, the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to rely on the best scientific information “available” and to draw all inferences in favor of imperiled species. The best information available is not always peer reviewed. Yet, Ms. MacDonald interpreted the IQA to require FWS to rely on peer reviewed information to support a listing of the grouse — a much higher standard that effectively put the burden of proof on the species. For such species, just as with many other environmental concerns, such ironclad data are rarely available. Such an approach also conflicts with the so-called “precautionary principle,” arguably inherent in many of the nation’s environmental laws and regulations, which requires that when probabilities cannot be calcluated with reasonable precision, decisions that could lead to great harm should be avoided. In addition, industry groups exploit the IQA’s requirement that scientific studies must be reproducible, by designing meaningless studies to confound good data within the literature. Such junk science was used in an IQA challenge to the EPA’s restrictions on the pesticide atrazine, which was linked to hormone disruption by separate studies in three countries. Atrazine’s manufacturer conducted its own studies that did not reproduce these results, and convinced EPA against restricting atrazine’s use. (The pesticide is banned in Europe because of its health effects.) Furthermore, at least two federal district courts have ruled that IQA challenges to the quality of information disseminated by federal agencies should take place only in administrative proceedings before agencies, and not in the courts, thereby seemingly insulating agency IQA determinations from judicial review.

Consequences of IQA Loopholes

Neither the IQA itself, nor the OMB or other agency guidelines, provide a means for interested parties to defend the quality of information they submit to a federal agency when that information is later attacked through an IQA challenge. For example, when the Partnership for the West — a coalition of western industries and economic interests — attacked through an IQA challenge the quality of information in the petition to list the sage grouse under the ESA, the conservationist petitioners were never so much as informed of the Partnership’s challenge, let alone afforded any formal opportunity to respond and defend the quality of the data supporting listing.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Bighorn sheep in Glacier National Park. Photo by Dan Funsch.

These problems create a perfect storm of conditions for any administration to make politically convenient decisions that reward friends but which do not necessarily rely on the best data and information available. As PEER’s Executive Director, Jeff Ruch, told a House Subcommittee in July, “the IQA produces meaningful relief only if the agency feels like giving it.” We should not be so innocent to think that unseemly use of the IQA won’t happen. In February, PEER and the Union of Concerned Scientists released the results of a survey of FWS biologists, ecologists, and other science professionals, which revealed that over half had been induced to reverse or withdraw scientific conclusions through political intervention by commercial interests. A similar survey of scientists within the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Services produced similar results. It should also come as no surprise that the IQA is supported by entities such as the Salt Institute, Partnership for the West, and the Chamber of Commerce, the latter of which testified before Congress in support of the IQA in July, or that the IQA has been strongly criticized by progressive groups and legal scholars. OMB Watch released a report on the IQA’s first year of implementation, and found the law to be riddled with problems. Even PEER, one of the few non-industry organizations to use the IQA, told Congress that it found the IQA to be flawed, only slightly effective, and profoundly weak.

Recommended Reforms

Only in the unlikely event that the IQA’s many problems could be remedied through legislative action following informed debate and hearings in Congress should the IQA be given any legitimacy at all. Such reforms must include, at a minimum, clear standards for ensuring the quality of agency-disseminated information, and provisions that allow for judicial review of agency decisions made under the IQA, as well as for the participation of interested parties in the administrative process. If such reforms were passed following an informed debate, the IQA could become a powerful tool for any organization to participate in the democratic process, and, presumably, could even result in higher quality information flowing from federal agencies. Until then, and perhaps even then, the IQA will remain a subjective, politically-driven, and expensive albatross on an already-strapped federal government. — Amy Atwood is a lawyer with the Western Environmental Law Center in Eugene, OR. She is also a member of the Wildlands CPR Board of Directors.

7

Roaring Through the Parks By Bethanie Walder

D

uring the brief moments of the 2004 presidential campaign that weren’t focused on Iraq, the economy or terrorism, other issues got some mention — including healthcare, education, and even the environment. One of the safe environmental topics George Bush chose to speak about was the National Parks. He explicitly discussed the need to fully fund the National Parks to address their maintenance backlogs and restore these national treasures to their full glory. Now, nearly a year after the election, that funding has failed to materialize and the Bush Administration has largely ignored every National Park except Yellowstone while systematically promoting resource extraction and privatization of other public lands. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration’s true priorities for National Park management became painfully clear last month. The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR) released a copy of Bush’s proposed changes to National Park policies. His proposal would fundamentally change more than 100 years of management direction. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times both reported on the revisions, which were prepared by the office of Paul Hoffman, deputy assistant secretary of the Interior. Fran Mainella, Director of the National Park Service, reports to Paul Hoffman.

According to CNPSR, the Department of the Interior (DOI) spent two years developing their proposed changes, which call for significant increases in motorized recreation and decreases in environmental protection. The Los Angeles Times reported that the changes would “allow snowmobiles to travel over any paved road in any national park in the winter; elevate certain activities already occurring in some parks, such as grazing and mining, to ‘park purposes’ — which would ensure their continuation; and change the acceptable level of air quality from ‘natural background’ to air that has been altered by human presence.”

National Park Origins

The National Park Service (NPS) and System were created by Congress in 1916 (even though the first National Park, Yellowstone, was designated in 1872). Congress established the system to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (16 USC § 1). This conservation purpose was further clarified by Congress in 1978 and by the NPS in 2001 to ensure that it remained more important than other uses, so that park resources will be available for future generations in perpetuity.

New Direction for Parks?

The proposed new policies would directly violate this Congressional direction, though the DOI insists that the changes are minimal and would have little impact. CNPSR developed an excellent chart comparing the proposed changes to the 2001 policy language — we’ve used it to highlight a few of the changes that concern people interested in reducing the impacts of roads and off-road vehicles. For the full chart, go to http://www.npsretirees.org/index.htm

Off-Road Vehicle Changes (Section 8.2.3.1)

Former language that has been removed or reworded “Within the National Park System, routes and areas may be designated for off-road motor vehicle use only by special regulation, and only when it would be consistent with the purposes for which the park unit was established. Route and areas may be designated only in locations in which there would be no adverse impacts on the area’s natural, cultural, scenic and esthetic values and in consideration of other visitor uses. As required by the Executive Order and the Organic Act, superintendents must immediately close a designated off-road vehicle route whenever the use is causing, or will cause, unacceptable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources.”

How far will the Bush Administration go to accommodate motorized users? Widening a trail in Glacier National Park. Photo by Dan Funsch.

8

Proposed new language “Within the National Park System, off-road vehicle use that occurs on or over roads regularly used by automobiles shall be allowed and managed in the same manner as automobile traffic is managed, while also ensuring traffic safety. Off-road vehicle use on off-road routes or in off-road areas may be necessary, when consistent with park purpos-

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

es, to provide opportunities for visitors to use and enjoy their parks. Off-road routes and areas may be designated for off-road motor vehicle use by special regulation when consistent with park purposes and public safety and in such manner as will not cause the impairment of resources or values. The criteria listed in section 8.2 should also be applied to determine whether off-road vehicle use may be allowed on off-road routes or in off-road areas. As required by the Executive order and the Organic Act, superintendents must first manage off-road vehicle use, and, if necessary, prohibit off-road vehicle use, on off-road routes or in off-road areas to provide for public safety and prevent impairment of resources or values.”

[The Bush Administration’s] proposal would fundamentally change more than 100 years of park management direction.

Analysis of the Proposal

This example highlights the profound change that DOI envisions for off-road vehicle recreation in the parks. The original policy allowed off-road motorized use by special regulation only, and only if it was consistent with the purposes for which the park unit was established. The proposed policy allows off-road vehicle use throughout the system on roads used by automobiles, and suggest that such use could be managed like automobiles. This is problematic in part because most states don’t allow non-street legal vehicles to travel on regular roads, and off-road vehicles typically are not street legal. It may be part of a broader trend, however, as many states have changed regulations to allow off-road vehicles on public land roads. Even more disturbing is the suggestion that offroad use may be necessary to enjoy the parks. This bold language would practically give off-road vehicle riders a designated right to drive in national parks. It is unclear how the parks or the courts would determine when off-road recreation is “necessary,” but in desert parks of the southwest with many dirt roads, like Death Valley, off-road vehicle enthusiasts could make significant claims. Finally, the proposed language is completely inconsistent with the off-road vehicle Executive Orders, and perhaps also the Park System Organic Act, because it directs Park Superintendents to “manage” off-road vehicle use and only prohibit it to prevent impairment of resources or values. The Executive Orders are very clear that off-road vehicle use has no primacy, and, in fact, can only be permitted when consistent with maintaining environmental, cultural and historic resources.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Mountain goats and other wildlife are being increasingly pushed to the edge to make room for motorized vehicles in our national parks. Photo by Dan Funsch.

Tip of the Iceberg

This is just one small example of the policy changes proposed by the DOI. The changes for regulating snowmobiling are similar to those for wheeled off-road vehicles. In addition, the proposal would make it easier to build roads in national parks, harder to designate wilderness, and harder to protect natural quiet, wildlife habitat and other resources if protection interfered with visitor “enjoyment.” The proposed changes would also allow increased mining, cell phone towers, and low-flying tour planes (some of these are allowed in some parks, but they are heavily regulated). Adding insult to injury, the proposed rules curtail the Park Service’s ability to use science as a management tool while simultaneously promoting the sale of religious materials in park stores and removing references to evolutionary processes.

Time to Respond

The proposal is extremely audacious and was met with immediate and harsh criticism from the seven regional directors of the NPS. The NPS then appointed a panel to work out compromise language with the DOI. Was, then, the initial proposal intended to make any compromise changes to the policy seem more reasonable? It is unclear whether or not Paul Hoffman will accept the compromise language, which has not yet been made public. Nonetheless the direction is clear — the Bush Administration intends to reduce protection for National Parks. With National Parks now under direct attack, it is clear that nothing is sacred to this Administration. While the American public is struggling to deal with a failing economy, a devastating war in Iraq, continuing attacks on civil liberties and rising energy prices, the Administration is busy dismantling America’s natural heritage. If we sit quietly by and do not fight back, in a few short years we may no longer recognize our own backyard. For more information about these proposed policy changes, or to get involved with efforts to maintain existing park protections, please visit http://www.npsretirees.org/index.htm

References

Barringer, Felixity. 2005. Top Official Urged Change in How Parks Are Managed. The New York Times. 8-26-05. Cart, Julie. 2005. Controversy Over Plans for Changes in U.S. Parks. Los Angeles Times. 8-26-05. Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. 2005. Analysis of Draft NPS Policy Changes. http://www.npsretirees.org/05 0826-ANALYSISofN PSmgmtpolicies.htm (posted 8-26-05).

9

Keeping the Hunt Wild by Scott Stouder

M

ike Duffy had been elk hunting since daylight. It was two hours after dark when he hung his rain jacket outside the tent, parted the canvas flap and stepped into the lantern light. His hair was plastered to his forehead and his eyes seemed as wild as the land outside, but a smile stretched across his bearded face. I handed him the hot drink that had been sitting next to the wood stove for almost an hour. “So where did you kill the bull?” As of this night Mike had listened for 15 years to others tell their story of killing elk without a story of his own. This night, in Oregon’s Eagle Cap Wilderness, with rain pounding the tent roof, he would finally tell his story. “He’s a long way up the mountain,” he answered wearily as he stripped his soaked clothes, donned dry shirt and pants, and paused to take a sip from the cup. “Near the top of the divide, about a half mile down in a steep canyon.” We would spend the next few hours reliving his hunt and the next few days packing and caring for elk meat. That’s the best of wilderness elk hunting. The worst is that it’s increasingly threatened by an insatiable urge to open every acre to motorized travel. Today, over 385,000 miles of roads criss-cross our national forests. That’s enough to stretch around the globe three times and over 50 times the length of America’s interstate freeway system. Worse, we can’t afford to maintain this giant motorized web - the

10

Photo by Bruce Eilerts. Courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

maintenance backlog on the Forest Service road system alone exceeds $10 billion. Perhaps more threatening than traditional road building, off-road vehicle (ORV) use continues to escalate on public lands. Industry figures put current ORV sales at about 2000 vehicles a day. Add those numbers to the estimated 5 million snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and off-road motorcycles already out there and the question becomes: Why build roads if we can drive across the land without them? In the spring of 2005, the Bush Administration abolished the protection of our last roadless public lands with the rollback of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Since that dark day there is no effective,

comprehensive national policy addressing the cumulative threats of development and industrialized recreation to our public lands. However, there is a policy that was designed by Congress to protect our public lands from being consumed by our own greed. It’s called the 1964 Wilderness Act. But since the hardening of America’s political climate in the 1980s, Congressional wilderness designation has been deemed too radical for our last roadless areas. It is not of course. Of the more than 2.25 billion acres in the United States, only 104 million wilderness acres exist (including Alaska). That’s a paltry 4.5 percent of our national landmass. We are hardly wallowing in wilderness.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

After Mike finished his drink and his story I stepped outside of the tent. The night air reminded me of other times and other wilderness hunts. For a quarter of a century my father, brother, uncle and I hunted elk and deer in Idaho’s Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. One morning I left camp before daylight and walked up a steep trail to a point we called Fire Knob. As the first light awakened across the land I found myself surrounded by elk. They were skylined above me, their long necks silhouetted against the light blue of the pre-dawn sky. Thinly screened by trees, I shrunk behind a windfall as two cow elk took tentative steps toward me and stopped. The day’s first sun hit the tops of the pine trees. The air slowed. The world yawned. Then the primal scream of a bull jolted the mountain awake. He bugled from the heavy timber on top warning the cows not to wander. But they, and the wind, continued to drift downhill. Frozen, I was suspended half crouched and half standing while the bull battered a hapless pine sapling. My feet tingled toward numbness and my legs began to tremble as minutes crawled by. But my focus was riveted to a sunlit opening the bull had to cross to retrieve his wandering harem. He did. The herd bolted at the shot, but the bull lay where he had fallen. As I walked up to him his liquid brown eyes glazed to black glass. After leaning my rifle against a tree I knelt on the ground beside him. Fresh green strips of tree bark clung to the thick base of his mahogany rack. The warm morning air reeked of pine resin, elk and fresh earth. I reached down and touched him, and the years I’d spent wandering and hunting in wild land flooded my consciousness like a tide. Images of other elk I’d hunted, horses I’ve loved, and the faces of family and friends with whom I’d shared the wilderness blurred my emotions. I knelt beside the dead elk with my eyes closed until my only tangible thought was simple gratitude for being a free person on this earth. I stood up, shrugged out of my pack and pulled my hunting knife from its sheath. Its familiar heft and the pragmatic need of caring for the meat helped settle my emotions.

But this elk - this being - was more than a piece of meat and I wasn’t able to render him to components quite yet. I looked at his teeth. Some were missing. All were worn down from winters of stripping aspen bark and scraping bunchgrass from snow-covered hillsides. He was connected to these mountains. Here was his place. As I looked out over the rolling spruce and pine carpet that buckled and broke into ridges and canyons, I knew for certain that he knew this land with more detail and intimacy than I could understand.

ers have mentally weaved the drainages and ridges together into personal treasures they revisit each autumn.

I call the hill Fire Knob because a wild fire swept over it years ago. Today it’s covered with mixed bunchgrass meadows and clumps of jackpine. The knob is really just a hump west of The Long Ridge and The Meadow. It’s just a little north - actually an extension - of The Brushpatch. Those names identify places where I’d spent my Septembers for over 20 years. They’re geographical blurbs on mental maps that exist on no paper. But they do exist.

“Are you worried about packing the meat out tomorrow?” I asked.

The elk, deer and grouse who live on Fire Knob know where it is. The moose and elk who spend summer days deep in The Brushpatch know every trail leading to The Meadow where they feed at night. The wolves, cougars and black bears know every ridge, trail and creek that binds the land and its intricate web of life together. Human hunt-

The animals know these places because it’s their home. Humans know them because the Wilderness Act forces us to travel slow and watch the land. These old memories, and Mike’s new ones, flowed through my mind later that night as I lay in my sleeping bag listening to rain on the canvas roof and dry pine crackling in the stove.

“No. We have plenty of time.” Mike answered in the darkness. That’s right, I thought. We do have time. Time to pack the elk out. Time to reflect on the absolute privilege of being a hunter and a free person on this earth. And time to be thankful that somebody before us had the foresight to preserve a small space in the world as wilderness. — Scott Stouder lives in Pollock, Idaho. He is the Western Field Director for Trout Unlimited and works to protect roadless public land in Idaho. This essay is excerpted from a longer piece in A Road Runs Through It, a Wildlands CPR anthology to be published in 2006.

Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

11

Transportation Program Update The Transportation Program focused its efforts this summer on building our organizing, policy, and information capacity in anticipation of the coming wave of travel planning on national forests.

Building Capacity Anticipating the revised off-road vehicle regulations, many national forests have already begun designating systems of roads, motorized recreation routes, and foot and hoof trails. Once the new rule is finalized, we expect even more forests to conduct such travel planning. To prepare, Wildlands CPR worked this quarter to increase funding for grassroots conservation efforts, leverage outside training resources, and craft a strategy to best support planning that will determine whether our forests become motorized playgrounds or serve as refuges for native plants and wildlife, and safe, quiet places for humans to recreate lightly on the land.

Early in the summer, Wildlands CPR assisted eleven conservation organizations in their attempts to secure funding from the National Forest Foundation. Over half were awarded grants to address unmanaged off-road vehicle recreation, with projects ranging from citizen monitoring to facilitating collaboration. One successful grant came from the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition (“NTWC,” of which Wildlands CPR director Bethanie Walder is a co-chair). The matching grant will enable the NTWC to partner with the University of Virginia’s Institute for Environmental Negotiation to offer trainings on effective collaboration. The workshops will be offered to representatives of conservation organizations, off-road vehicle clubs, a diversity of forest users, and agency planners. The Coalition will offer the workshops in 5-8 states over the next year in response to the Forest Service’s insistence on using “collaboration” to inform travel planning decisions despite the agency’s lack of expertise and financial commitment to these potentially nebulous and provincial processes. The NTWC also received a grant from the Harder Foundation that will allow Wildlands CPR to place Transportation Organizer Jason Kiely “on loan” to serve as the Coalition’s Forest Campaign Coordinator. In this capacity, Jason will provide training, consultation, technical and other support to travel planning initiatives in three to six targeted states. In this vein, Wildlands CPR continues to aid the efforts of the Three Forest Coalition in southern Utah to secure travel and forest plans which will protect native plants and wildlife, preserve natural quiet, and secure safe and quiet trails. Wildlands CPR is now in the process of hiring someone to replace Jason.

From Grassroots Contact to Scientific Research Over the summer, we enjoyed the help of intern Gordon Willson Naranjo, who conducted a survey of 1,100 citizens that had commented on the Forest Service’s draft off-road vehicle rule. As a result, we garnered more than 100 responses and 60 new members. Perhaps more importantly, we connected many of those respondents with nearby grassroots organizations and provided materials to help those folks challenge off-road vehicles.

Trying to reach a place of responsible travel management?... Expect delays. Here, road crews repair Glacier’s Going To the Sun Road. Photo by Dan Funsch.

12

This summer we contracted with Noah Jackson to update our bibliographic database on the ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. The database now contains more than 12,000 citations on impacts. As we went to press, we were preparing to upload the new database (and new software) to our website. Check it out at www.wildlandscpr.org.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Restoration Program Update Wildlands CPR continues our proactive restoration work with on-the-ground, collaborative road removal projects. In particular, Marnie Criley worked this summer to advance two efforts in the inland northwest. Lolo Creek, Western Montana – In June Sungnome Madrone, from Northern California’s Redwood Community Action Agency, gave an inspiring restoration workshop in the community of Lolo, Montana. The workshop excited community members about road restoration, and was followed with a field tour of potential road removal sites on upper Lolo Creek in the Lolo National Forest. Wildlands CPR is a key member of a group that is meeting to discuss funding opportunities and road removal priorities: their proposal includes decommissioning some 80 miles of road and removing or replacing 21 culverts in order to improve water quality and fish habitat. The project has an estimated cost of $3 million. The Forest Service is eager to work with conservationists and the community of Lolo to make this project happen, and they recently released an Environmental Assessment, so stay tuned. Hells Canyon, Northeastern Oregon – On August 22, Marnie attended a meeting in Enterprise, Oregon to discuss restoration within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. The meeting led to the formation of a collaborative with representation from environmental and community forestry groups, the local Resource Advisory Committee and the Nez Perce Tribe, among others. The fledgling collaborative will take on a small project to build trust (possibly a culvert replacement) and then hopes to move on to a much larger project like transportation planning and road removal prioritization. Separate from that meeting, Wildlands CPR is working with the Nez Perce Tribe to host a roads workshop in the Hells Canyon region this fall to introduce the ecological and economic benefits of road removal to the local community. Tribal Road Removal Internship – The Restoration Program’s summer intern, Laura Harris, did a great job of mapping where tribal and forest service lands overlap, and conducting preliminary research into which tribes might be interested in establishing road removal programs similar to the Nez Perce and Karuk Tribes. We hope to find a Native American intern to follow up on Laura’s work. If you or anyone you know might be interested, please contact Marnie Criley at [email protected].

Supporting Restoration with Science Science Coordinator Adam Switalski continues to promote road removal as a key component of wildland restoration and provide citizens with the latest research on roads and off-road vehicles. He has recently given presentations at scientific conferences and is coordinating road removal research projects in Idaho and Montana.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Marnie Criley at the U.S. Society of Ecological Economics conference.

Conferences

Adam attended the Rockies Wildlife Crossing Field Course in Payson, AZ where he sat on a panel entitled “Wildlife Linkage Approaches: Land Conservation and Management.” He spoke on integrating road removal into mitigation, and had many valuable conversations with engineers and biologists. Afterwards, Adam attended the Spine of the Continent Workshop to strategize how to implement Wildland Network Designs (WNDs). Adam also attended the Society for Conservation Biology conference in Brasilia, Brazil, where he presented a study he coauthored with Lisa Eby of the University of Montana on stream habitat restoration following road decommissioning on the Flathead National Forest. The conference was very well attended (1,500 people from 60 countries), interesting, and productive.

Citizen Science on the Clearwater

With the help of our Development Director Tom Peterson and others, Wildlands CPR received continued funding from the National Forest Foundation for our citizen science program on the Clearwater National Forest (CNF). With funding secured, Adam and Katherine Court, a University of Montana Environmental Studies (UM EVST) graduate student, bought field sampling supplies, identified monitoring sites, and began monitoring. They have already caught tracks or photos of bear, deer, elk, moose, squirrels, and voles. Additionally, Hank Green (UM EVST) has developed an online data form for citizen scientists to enter data and conduct basic analysis remotely. We plan to continue collecting data until the snow falls: if you would like to assist us please contact Katherine at [email protected].

Wildlife on the Flathead

Adam also worked with Sonya Germann (UM Forestry student) this summer on a project exploring the impact of road removal on wildlife (particularly grizzly bears) on the Flathead National Forest. She used techniques similar to those Wildlands CPR tested on the CNF on open, removed, and slated to be removed roads. Adam and Sonya are working with UM Forestry professors Dan Pletcher and Kerry Foresman to finalize the results of the research.

13

Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our 10,000 citation bibliography on the physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

The Ecological Effects of Roads in the Brazilian Amazon:

Current Status and Prospects for the Future

By Adam Switalski

H

ome to almost 15 percent of the world’s plants and animals, Brazil is the most biologically diverse country on the planet (Lewinsohn and Prado 2005). While the great Amazon rainforest is probably its most well known ecosystem, Brazil’s Atlantic Forest and Cerrado regions are considered hotspots, some of the earth’s most biologically rich places. Additionally, the Pantanal in southern Brazil is the world’s largest wetland (about the size of Colorado). Within the Amazon, Brazil sustains over half of the world’s remaining tropical rainforest. Unfortunately, it also has the world’s highest rate of forest destruction (seven football fields per minute; Laurance et al. 2001). Roads are key to this destruction and are providing conduits for logging, forest fragmentation, and access deep into the heart of the Amazon. Brazil has an ecological research base which exceeds that of any other tropical country. This year, Brazil hosted the annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology and the journal Conservation Biology dedicated an entire special section on Brazilian conservation. In this paper, I review the research on the ecological impacts of roads in the Amazon and comment on the state of conservation in this megadiverse country. With over $40 billion in planned infrastructure improvements in the next decade, Brazil’s natural heritage is at risk as roads chip away at the largest rainforest on Earth.

nian highway. Originally built for military purposes, by 1984 some 160,000 migrants were colonizing the interior Amazon each year (Shankland 1993). While development agencies hoped to bring lifestyle-improving economic activities to inaccessible areas, they quickly found they had no control over the volume and nature of migration (Dobias and Talbott 2001). Four years later, a fifth of the surrounding rainforest had been destroyed and 85 percent of the indigenous population had died from violence and disease (Shankland 1993). Following the construction of the trans-Amazonian highway, annual deforestation rates increased from a background level of 1,216 km2 per year in 1976 to 13,955 km2 per year in 1984 (Fearnside 1987). The most obvious result of the trans-Amazonian highway was intensive logging and conversion of the rainforest to ranches and cropland. Several studies have since documented increased deforestation following Amazon road building (Fearnside 1987, Carvalho et al. 2001, Laurance et al. 2001, Nepstad et al. 2001, Steininger et al. 2001). In fact, Laurance et al. (2002) reported that highway proximity was the “single most important predictor of deforestation.” Furthermore, more than twothirds of the deforestation in the Amazon has occurred within 50 km of major paved highways (Nepstad et al. 2001).

Fragmentation

In addition to deforestation, much of the remaining Amazon is fragmented and prone to edge effects. One study found that edge effects impacted an area more than 150 percent larger than the area actually deforested (Skole and Tucker 1993). An additional million hectares of forest are selectively logged each year as well

Deforestation

The environmental and social costs of roads in Brazil did not gain attention until the building of the trans-Amazo-

14

The ecological effects of roads in the Amazon are far more profound than the obvious visible scars. Photo by Adam Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

(Nepstad et al. 1999). Fragmented forests experience dramatic changes in forest dynamics, structure, composition, and microclimate resulting in a high vulnerability to drought and fire (Laurance et al. 2000). If this trend continues, Nepstad et al. (2001) warns that forest conversion could transform half of the Amazon into fire-prone scrub vegetation and cattle pastures. Fragmented forests directly affect wildlife as well. For example, a study found that Amazonian birds rarely crossed a road that received only 6-10 vehicle passes a day (Laurance et al. 2004). Even overgrown sections of the road were rarely crossed by solitary understory bird species. Another study found that closing roads showed a potential to restore bird movement: mixed-species flocks readily crossed a closed road while avoiding open roads (Develey and Stouffer 2000).

Overhunting

Road building allows greater hunter access and can have dramatic effects on wildlife populations. Roads reduce transportation costs and create a commercial demand for forest resources beyond local subsistence needs (Lorenzen and Almeida 2005). Intensive hunting can completely extirpate game species that have low reproductive rates. For example, Peres (1991) reported that populations of the endangered Humboldt’s wooly monkey were “quickly wiped out once access is opened by new roads.” While the road density of the Amazon is only 0.0085 km/km2, Amazonian hunters are willing to wander far from the road to kill preferred game species (Peres and Lake 2003). Accordingly, Peres and Lake (2003) found that populations of preferred species were much lower close to access points (roads and rivers). Furthermore, Peres and Lake (2003) argue that 100 percent of the Amazon would be accessible to hunters if road densities increased to 0.119 km/km2. This is particularly disturbing because what appear to be pristine forests from satellite images may be absent of key wildlife species.

Roadkill

In addition to building new roads, a current trend in Brazil is to pave existing roads. Paving roads allows access throughout the wet season, as well as increasing travel speed. With increased access and speeds, roadkill also increases. Recent research is exploring wildlife/vehicle collisions. Gordo et al. (2005) collected roadkill on a remote Amazon highway where only 200 cars pass each day. Over five years, they collected over 2,400 birds and mammals killed on a 120 km stretch of road. Studies in other parts of Brazil also found high rates of roadkill following road paving (e.g., Coehho et al. 2005, Bueno et al. 2005). Proposed strategies for mitigating wildlife/vehicle collisions include signs and driver education (Bueno et al. 2005) as well as wildlife passages and speed reducers (Coelho et al. 2005).

Challenges

Since the building of the trans-Amazonian highway, dozens of studies have documented the social and environmental impacts of roads in Brazil. The lessons are being applied around the world, except, unfortunately, in Brazil. In December 2004 Peru and Brazil agreed to build the transoceanic highway, which would stretch from Peru’s Pacific ports across the Andes and Amazon to the Atlantic (Brandon et al. 2005). Additionally, the government’s Avanca Brasil (Advance Brazil) program includes $40 billion for infrastructure in the Amazon to meet a perceived need to transport soybeans (Laurance et al. 2002). It would include paving over 7,500 km of highways and greatly expanding the Amazon road network (Laurance et al. 2002). Avanca Brasil will nearly double the forest area within 50 km of a paved road and result in an estimated 120,000 - 270,000 km2 of deforestation in the coming 2-3 decades (Nepstad et al. 2001). In addition to deforestation, Avanca Brasil will expand the logging industry, increase forest fire, and affect indigenous and biological reserves (Nepstad et al. 2001). While the official justification is to reduce the cost of transporting soybeans, the deforestation and other impacts may not be worth the benefits to this small segment of society.

Hope for the future

The predicted loss of the integrity of the Amazon may be averted. Pressure from the international community and foreign investors can greatly influence planning and environmental assessment (Laurance et al. 2002). Additionally, coopera-

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Increased access leads directly to increased hunting and poaching. Photo by Adam Switalski.

tive resource management programs supported by wealthy nations and nongovernmental organizations may help. Some 350 indigenous and environmental groups work in Brazil, and many of these are oriented towards sustainable development or indigenous communities (Anon 1999). Additionally, an international initiative for Amazonian conservation entitled, “Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Amazon” includes land use planning, extractive and Amerindian reserves, ecological corridor systems, applied research, and capacity building for local governments (Laurence et al. 2000).

Conclusion

It has been well documented that increased transportation infrastructure accelerates migration and deforestation in the Amazon. The Amazon’s population has increased ten fold since the 1960s, and it has the highest deforestation rate in the world. While some road construction has been prevented through environmental protest, the pressure to build roads continues. With only one percent of the Amazon officially protected (Peres and Lake 2001) and an estimated 80 percent of Amazon timber harvested illegally without any environmental control (Abrzmovitz 1998), it is essential that roads be prevented in the most pristine places. Hopefully, decision makers will chose a sustainable path for the most biologically diverse forest in the world. — Adam Switalski is Wildlands CPR’s Science Coordinator and recently attended the Society for Conservation Biology annual meeting in Brazil and witnessed firsthand the impacts of roads in the Amazon.

15

References Anon. 1999. Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest: Annual Report on Progress. World Bank, Brasilia, Brazil. Abramovitz, J. 1998. Taking a Stand: Cultivating a New Relationship with the World’s Forests. World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. Brandon, K., G.A.B. Da Fonseca, A.B. Rylands, and J.M.C. Da Silva. 2005. Introduction to special section: Brazilian conservation: challenges and opportunities. Conservation Biology 19(3): 595-600. Bueno, A., S.C.S. Belentani, and M.C. Ribeiro. 2005. Wildlife road mortality in Triângulo Mineiro, southeastern Brazil. Abstracts of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, July 15-19, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil. Carvalho, G., A.C. Barros, P. Moutinho, and D.C. Nepstad. 2001. Sensitive development could protect the Amazon instead of destroying it. Nature 409: 131. Coelho, I.P, A. Kindel, and A. Coelho. 2005. Vertebrate road-kills in two highways crossing the Mata Atlantica Biosphere Reserve in southern Brazil. Abstracts of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, July 15-19, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil. Develey, P.F., and P.C. Stouffer. 2005. Effects of roads on movements by understory birds in mixed-species flocks in Central Amazonian Brazil. Conservation Biology 15(5): 1416-1422. Dobias, R.J., K. Talbott. Environmental and social considerations in the development of the greater Makong subregion’s road network. 2001. Pages 258-280 in I.A. Bowles and G.T. Prickett, editors. Footprints in the Jungle. Oxford University Press, New York. Fearnside, P.M. 1987. Deforestation and international development projects in Brazilian Amazonia. Conservation Biology 1(3): 214-220.

Another road to nowhere sustainable in the Brazilian Amazon. Photo by Adam Switalski.

16

Gordo, M., E.M. Venticinque. 2005. Cryptic effect of roads in the Amazon: Quantification of the fauna mortality from running over on highway BR-174. Abstracts of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, July 15-19, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil. Laurance, W.F., H.L. Vasconcelos, and T.E. Lovejoy. 2000. Forest loss and fragmentation in the Amazon: implications for wildlife conservation. Oryx 34(1): 39-45. Laurance, W.F., A.K.M. Albernaz, and C. Da Costa. 2001. Is deforestation accelerating in the Brazilian Amazon? Environmental Conservation 28: 305-311. Laurance, W.F., A.K.M. Albernaz, G. Schroth, P.M. Fearnside, S. Bergen, E.M. Venticinque, and C. Da Costa. 2002. Predictors of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Biogeography 29: 737-748. Laurance, S.G., P.C. Stouffer, and W.F. Laurance. 2004. Effects of road clearings on movement patterns of understory rainforest birds in central Amazonia. Conservation Biology 18(4): 1099-1109. Lewinsohn, T.M., A.V.L. Freitas, and P.I. Prado. 2005. Conservation of terrestrial invertebrates and their habitats in Brazil. Conservation Biology 19(3): 625-631. Lorenzen, K., O.T. Almeida. 2005. Commercial fisheries and community-based management of floodplain lakes: modelling the impacts of the Cuibá-Santarém Highway, BR-163. Abstracts of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, July 15-19, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil. Nepstad, D.C., A. Verissimo, A. Alencar, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebre, P. Schlesinger, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, and V. Brooks. 1999. Largescale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398: 505-508. Nepstad, D., G. Carvalho, A.C., Barros, A. Alencar, J.P. Capobianco, J. Bishop, P. Mountinho, P. Lefebre, U. Lopes Silva, and E. Prins. 2001. Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 395-407. Peres, C.A. 1991. Humboldt’s wooly monkeys decimated by hunting in Amazonia. Onyx 25(2): 89-95. Peres, C.A., and I.R. Lake. 2003. Extent of nontimber resource extraction in tropical forests: accessibility to game vertebrates by hunters in the Amazon basin. Conservation Biology 17(2): 521-535. Reid, J.W., and I.A. Bowles. 1997. Reducing the impacts of roads on tropical forests. Environment 39(8): 10-35. Shankland, A. 1993. Brazil’s BR-364 highway – a road to nowhere? The Ecologist 23(4): 141-147. Skole, D., and C.J. Tucker. 1993. Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 260: 1905-1910. Steininger, M.K., C.J. Tucker, J.R.G. Townsend, T.J. Killeen, A. Desch, V. Bell, and P. Ersts. 2001. Tropical deforestation in the Bolivian Amazon. Environmental Conservation 28: 127-134.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Legislative Update A Close Up Look at the Highway Spending Bill By Wildlands CPR staff

B

elow is a summary of some provisions of the highway spending bill signed by the President on August 10: the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This information comes from several sources, including Josh Burnim of American Wildlands and Michael Replogle of Environmental Defense (environmentaldefense.org/go/transportation). Because the bill contains so many provisions this summary is far from comprehensive; for the entire bill, go to http://www.house.gov/rules/109textTEALU.htm

Negative Provisions Forest Highways Sec. 1101. Authorization of Appropriations (Title I, p. 17) Funding for Public Lands Highways starts at $280 million per year in 2005 and increases to $300 million per year by 2009. Of this, the Forest Highways program receives 66%, or an average of $188 million/year through 2009. This funding is used to upgrade regular forest roads to paved, high speed forest highways, increasing environmental impacts. However, a new provision allows $10 million per year to be used to improve fish passage, $20 million for maintenance, and $1 million for increasing hunting and fishing signage. (Title I, p. 113). Recreational Trails Program Section 1109 Recreation Trails (Title 1, p. 54) Funding for trails will increase from its current rate of $50 million per year to $85 million by 2009. While some is dedicated to nonmotorized trails, the bulk goes to motorized trail development. This program receives much support from the motorized and nonmotorized recreation communities, making it a very difficult appropriation to challenge. Changes to Section 4f of the Transportation Act Sec. 6009. Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges and Historic Sites (Section 4f and 106) (Title VI, p. 96) Section 4(f) was one of the strongest components of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966. It provided control against roads that would affect public parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or historic sites. (Reasonable alternatives had to be chosen, or mitigation was required.) The new regulations are weakened to allow the Secretary of Transportation to find that a project has de minimis impact if it “will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection...” Fortunately, the definition of de minimis impact is restrictive and there are requirements for public notice and comment every time the new de mininis exemption to 4(f) protections is used. The minimization of impacts remains intact. Changes to NEPA Implementation Section 6002 of the final bill (Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking) limits the consideration of alternatives in highway project environmental impact statements (EISs), further eroding the National Environmental Policy Act. It also limits the timeline (180 days from a record of decision) for challenging those EISs, forcing people to file quick lawsuits rather than negotiate for better projects.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Bad Projects Funded The final bill earmarks funding for ecologically devastating projects throughout the country — for example, constructing a road to Juneau, Alaska, and constructing the Gravina Bridge in Alaska. Both communities are already well served by the ferry system. For a listing of earmarks, go to Taxpayers for Common Sense: www.taxpayer.net/transportation/safetealu/ states.htm.

Positive Provisions Wildlife Crossing Structures and Fish Passage Funding from the following programs can now be used to pay for wildlife crossing structures and/or fish passage: Sec. 1401. Highway Safety Improvement Program, 148(a)(3)(B) Inclusions: Measures to reduce wildlife-vehicle accidents (Title I. Subsection D, p. 4). The total program is $1.25 billion, and a portion can be used to add or retrofit structures to reduce animal/vehicle collisions. Sec. 1113. Surface Transportation Program. Transportation Enhancement Activities (Title I, p. 65). A portion can be used to reduce wildlife mortality and maintain habitat connectivity; also to address water pollution from highway runoff. (Total TE funding about $650 million/year) Sec. 1119. Federal Lands Highways. Forest Highways (Title I, p. 114). Passage of aquatic species. $10 million per year can be used for fish passage. Non-native invasive species Sec. 6006. Environmental Restoration and Pollution Abatement; Control of Noxious Weeds and Aquatic Noxious Weeds and Establishment of Native Species (Title VI, p. 90). Funding is now available to control noxious weeds and to establish native vegetation in highway projects. Increased funding for mass/alternative transit Sec. 3021. Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (Title III, p. 176). Funding could be used for trams, pedestrian/bicycle trails, etc. and is focused on energy efficient alternatives. Sec 1807. Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program. While not related to wildlands, this section funds implementation and monitoring for a comprehensive non-motorized transportation network in four U.S. cities.

17

Roadless Roundup: Western States React To New Rule Western states are scrambling to deal with President Bush’s new Roadless Rule, which gave state governors 18 months to design proposals to either protect roadless acres or open them up to development. On June 8 Colorado Gov. Bill Owens signed legislation creating a committee to advise state and federal officials on the state’s 4.4 million acres of roadless forests. The 13-member task force will field public sentiment and forward their findings to the governor, who then will take the plan to the Department of Agriculture (USDA), which retains the final say. Utah is taking a decidedly different tack, one that has environmentalists worried. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said he will not petition the USDA to protect Utah’s four million roadless acres, but instead let the Forest Service address the issue through its forest management plan revisions, which are ongoing in four of Utah’s six national forests. But environmental groups argue that declining to formally protect roadless areas will invite development.

In Montana, Gov. Brian Schweitzer wrote a strongly worded letter to Bush, saying that Montana has insufficient resources to evaluate and establish a roadless plan for the state’s 6.4 million acres of federal roadless lands. He also took issue with the fact that the USDA retains final authority over proposals, writing, “In other words, Washington has the final say, not Montanans.” Nonetheless, Gov. Schweitzer is planning to submit a petition. Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire is planning to petition for protection of most, if not all of her state’s roadless areas. Finally, an attempt by the Wyoming Outdoor Council and seven other environmental groups to repeal Bush’s Roadless Rule was dismissed by a federal court. The groups hoped to have the Clinton-era Roadless rule reinstated, but since a replacement rule has already been adopted, the panel of three judges ruled the appeal irrelevant. Attorney Jim Angell of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund said the appeals court decision does not end the fight but only “clears the decks” for future battles. The first battle started when the Attorneys General of California, Oregon and New Mexico filed suit against the Bush Administration for repealing the 2000 Roadless Rule. The states argued that the repeal was illegal because of insufficient analysis of the new rule.

Gallatin Study Finds Motorized Restrictions Won’t Hurt Economy An economic study released in mid-June by officials in Montana’s Gallatin National Forest found that proposed restrictions on motorized use in the forest would not have a negative impact on the area’s economy. The study also found that nonmotorized users generate nearly twice as much spending as motorized users: $7.3 million in spending supporting 330 jobs versus $3.9 million in economic activity and 185 jobs for motorized use. Forest recreation in general was found to be a minor player in the economies of the three counties that contain the Gallatin National Forest, making up less than 2 percent of the overall economy. Gallatin officials ordered the study after fielding concerns from the public and Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-MT., that limiting motorized recreation would impact the region’s economy. A Forest Service economist and a social scientist performed the research, based on a yearlong visitor survey in the Gallatin as well as state, federal and academic data about the area. The study is now part of the environmental impact statement that Unlike motorized restrictions, clogged culverts do drain the federal considers the Gallatin’s proposed closures, which forest oftreasury. Photo by Marnie Criley. ficials say are needed in the face of growing use. The study breaks down people’s activities in the forest, and finds that the vast majority prefer nonmotorized usage: hiking and walking make up 29.1 percent; relaxing accounts for 10.6 percent; hunting is 9.2 percent; downhill skiing is 8.2 percent; snowmobiling is 7.8 percent; fishing is 6.6 percent; developed camping is 4.5 percent; viewing natural features is 3.7 percent; nonmotorized water use is 3.2 percent; and viewing wildlife is 2.9 percent. For more information, please visit http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/?page=/projects/travel_planning

18

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

New Washington Law Permits Unlicensed Off-Highway Vehicles A new Washington law would permit riders of unlicensed off-highway vehicles to use forest roads and trails, and managers on national forests in Washington are studying the issue to gauge whether and where such vehicles might be appropriate. Until now, all vehicles used on forest roads were required to be licensed and street legal, but the new legislation distinguishes these roads from streets and highways and makes it legal to mix both licensed and unlicensed vehicles on forest roads. The Collville National Forest in eastern Washington has been piloting a consensus-based collaborative process to determine which roads previously open only to high-clearance trucks and jeeps may be suitable for ATV and dirt bike recreation. Initially, the forest considered making a blanket decision to open more than 2,000 miles of these roads to motorized recreation. However, the statewide organization Conservation Northwest engaged diligently throughout the process, successfully limiting the designation to 450 miles of roads open to off-road vehicle recreation. Other state legislatures have passed similar legislation or are considering allowing off-road vehicle recreation on roads designed for passenger vehicles; recreation managers in some of those states similarly have advanced this idea. Washington may set a precedent for when, where, and how to allow ATV and dirt bike recreation on unimproved roads. Elsewhere in Washington, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Supervisor Jim Boynton approved vehicle closures in several parts of the Milk Pond complex after illegal off-highway vehicle users turned much of the area into mud bogs over the Memorial Day weekend. “Maybe that’s what people need to see — that this kind of behavior can force closures,” said acting Naches District Ranger Jodi Leingang.

How Many is a “Few” Bad Apples? The off-road vehicle community frequently laments the irresponsible behavior of “a few bad apples” who ride off of designated routes. Organized motorized recreation groups consistently state that this minority of riders give the sport an undeserved black eye. However, two recently reported studies suggest that a majority of off-roaders, not just a few, violate commonly known rules in forests that have limited vehicle use to designated routes only and that prohibit crosscountry travel.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

The first study was commissioned in 2001 by the Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHV Riding. In that study Monaghan and Associates found that as many as two-thirds of off-roaders deviate from the sanctioned routes “some of the time” despite knowing that going off the route is not “correct” behavior. The study reports that “an estimated 15-20% of Colorado users strictly follow safety and environmental rules and never go off the trail,” while “a similar range of 15-20% of the state’s OHV users frequently break the rules and often go off-trail.” A similar study, completed in 2002 by the University of Utah’s Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, surveyed summer off-road vehicle riders for their riding preferences and practices. Of the ATV riders surveyed, 49.4% prefer to ride off established trails, while 39% did so on their most recent excursion. Of the dirt bike riders surveyed, 38.1% prefer to ride off established trails, while 50% did so on their most recent excursion. Significant portions of federal public lands in Utah still allow for cross-country travel, which may account for much of this “off-trail” use. Nonetheless, the preference and practice point to an enforcement challenge for those public land managers attempting to limit off-road vehicle recreation to designated routes only. Thanks to Colorado Mountain Club for information about the Colorado study. Despite this research, a group of off-roaders, environmentalists and public officials in Colorado recently launched an educational campaign intended to keep off-road riders from veering off-routes and destroying habitat and roadless areas on public lands.

3rd annual “Quiet Commotion” Citizen Conference October 14-15, 2005 Come join us in beautiful Crestone, Colorado at the Colorado College-Baca Campus surrounded by the jagged peaks of the Sangre De Cristo range to the east and the San Luis Valley to the southwest. The Quiet Commotion is a weekend forum for humanpowered recreationists to gather and exchange experiences, share inspiration, and learn skills from national experts to enable effective advocacy for protecting the quiet non-motorized experience in the places we cherish. Organizations and individuals throughout the Southern Rockies are providing expert knowledge, materials, and experience. We will learn about what works and what doesn’t, acquire essential skills for being an effective advocate, and strategize how we are going to preserve quiet use. We will have a few plenary sessions to set the stage, and then will learn through hands-on field trips to the BLM lands in the San Luis Valley. For more information and to register: visit www.southernrockies.org or contact Aaron Clark 303-324-7031, or [email protected]

19

Organizational

The Sky Island Alliance

The Citizen/Organizational Spotlight shares the stories of some of the awesome activists and organizations we work with, both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting successful strategies and lessons learned. This issue we focus the spotlight on an organization for the first time. Please email your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to [email protected].

By Cathy Adams

I

t is said you can walk from Mexico to Canada in a day if you’re visiting the beautiful region of the Sky Islands — encompassing southeast Arizona, southwest New Mexico and northern Mexico. A hiker can literally begin their trek in the desert, pass through chaparral, meander into oak woodlands and finish in a spruce fir forest in less than five miles. The Sky Island region encompasses 70,000 square miles of some of North America’s most diverse ecosystems. There are about 40 Sky Island mountain ranges in all, connecting the temperate Rocky Mountains in the north to the sub-tropical Sierra Madre Occidental in the south. This unique overlap of ecosystems generates a diverse range of habitats from temperate to tropical, inhabited by wildlife from wolves to parrots. Isolating these islands in the sky are seas of desert and grasslands, creating some of the most important wildlife corridors in the country.

Photo courtesy of Sky Island Alliance.

Locals and visitors alike have long known the value and beauty of the area, but to scientists and conservationists it is much more than just a pretty place. In 1991, a proposal by the U.S. Forest Service to turn the Coronado National Forest into a National Recreation Area (NRA) had many citizens and scientists concerned. A small group was so concerned that they launched a group to help protect it. The Sky Island Alliance (SIA) was formed in 1992 to protect and restore the native biological diversity of this rich landscape by launching an alternative proposal that placed emphasis upon landscape-level planning and bioregional reserve design. Matt Skroch, Executive Director of SIA, says an National Recreation Area would emphasize industrial recreation over natural resource protection. The bio-regional reserve process continues today, representing one of the nation’s first case studies of large scale reserve design implementation.

20

“Our approach is to see the region as a whole, connecting our conservation actions to the larger picture of regional, and in our case, continental landscape connectivity,” says Skroch. “The Sky Islands underscore the importance of landscape connectivity because, while topographically isolated from one another, they are biologically very much connected. Large mammals such as black bear, jaguar, Mexican gray wolf, mountain lion and bobcats require more than one Sky Island range to maintain population viability. In fact, these far ranging mammals often move from range to range, depending upon wildlife corridors between our mountain islands.” That, Skroch says, is why we can’t manage areas in a piecemeal fashion, and why it is critical to deal with habitat fragmentation, including that caused by roads. Though private, federal, state, and locally owned land creates a “management mosaic,” wildlife travels across landscapes in what makes the most biological sense. Therefore landscape-level planning that connects habitat patches is recognized as an important component to any conservation plan. With the region being home to the United States’ most diverse populations of reptiles and mammals, about 4,000 plant species, and more than half of all the breeding birds in North America, it creates an urgency for SIA staff, scientists, and citizens to push forward with conservation action. Sky Island Alliance’s proposed interconnected conservation area is now in the implementation phase, and quickly on its way to becoming a reality. The organization focuses on protecting the core habitat patches – often existing or proposed Wilderness Areas – and the wildlife corridors in between. Because Mexico hosts almost half of the Sky Island region, SIA also dedicates time to conservation challenges along the border. Skroch says that one unique problem the region faces is immigration policy, and that with increased militarization of our southern border we are quickly pinching off movement patterns of important species traveling across the border. While Sky Island Alliance has an eight person staff, it also has an extremely large volunteer pool that extends the organization’s reach and ability many-fold. In the past five years SIA has worked with more than 1,200 volunteers,

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

who have donated more than 40,000 hours supporting SIA’s mission and programs. In the mid1990s SIA started their volunteer program with road monitoring efforts on the Coronado, with assistance from Wildlands CPR. After several years of inventorying the location and impacts of roads throughout the Coronado, SIA started working with the forest to determine which roads to close and obliterate. Then in 1999, SIA invited Wildlands CPR to lead a road decommissioning workshop for SIA volunteers. SIA has since been able to share their road decommissioning and other volunteer expertise with numerous other groups in their region. They’ve gotten 45 miles of roads closed and restored on the Coronado and Gila National Forests, in addition to many roads in the BLM Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. But their volunteer program goes far beyond road issues. Volunteers help map potential wilderness areas by completing surveys, assist in identifying landscape linkages by recording wildlife tracks and sign, and directly engage in restoration efforts such as road removal, riparian vegetation projects, and wildlife reintroduction programs. However, these volunteers aren’t just tossed into the woods with a notebook and pen; SIA hosts an intensive five-day training workshop taught by regional wildlife experts and staff. By incorporating volunteers into almost every program, Sky Island Alliance achieves a level of public participation rarely seen in other places. “We accomplish three things with our volunteer program” Skroch says. “We cover more ground in our inventory and restoration projects, educate the public with first hand experience of conservation issues facing our region, and build a critical advocacy pool for conservation campaigns.”

Photo courtesy of Sky Island Alliance.

SIA also works with locally elected officials, businesses and community groups. Over the last two years, they’ve spearheaded the Friends of the Tumacacori Highlands, a coalition of more than 120 local businesses and organizations proposing to designate portions of a Sky Island as Wilderness. The Tumacacori Highlands campaign is lead by Congressman Raul Grijalva and when designated by Congress, will establish the first wilderness on Arizona National Forest lands in more than 20 years. Regardless of what the conservation challenge is, Sky Island Alliance takes a pragmatic, practical approach to finding a solution. Sometimes working with land agencies and sometimes working against, their mission to protect and restore landscapes and wildlife in the region goes undeterred. By integrating volunteerism, science, and conservation advocacy, their formula works well in a region that is as biologically diverse as it is culturally diverse. To achieve the lofty goals of landscape level conservation, they work on a long-term timeframe. “We’re in this for the long-haul and hope that our actions today will benefit those who come after us. To enjoy the howl of a wolf, or the solitude of our wilderness – those are experiences that we must keep whole.” Skroch says. That, combined with their hard hitting science and advocacy work will surely keep Sky Island Alliance busy for generations to come. The best way to support the Sky Island Alliance is to donate your time or money. After all, wild places only get protected when individual citizens have the passion to fight for them. You can become a member by calling or logging on to their website, www.skyislandalliance.org, which includes an updated list of upcoming events and other ways to get involved. The most significant thing I learned is how important our participation as individuals contributes to the health of our ecology. It is up to us to educate others on how everything fits together to form one healthy ecosystem. Our efforts to study, document and vie for protection of a single species or group make a difference for us all. — Quote from SIA wildlife monitoring volunteer, taken from SIA website.

Photo courtesy of Sky Island Alliance.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

— Cathy Adams is Wildlands CPR’s new program assistant.

21

Predators and other Wild Things of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

In July, Laura Harris joined us for a month to research the relationship between tribal land ownership, treaty rights, and federal lands. The Clearwater National Forest, for example, is located on ceded tribal territory to which the Nez Perce Tribe has certain rights. This has enabled the Tribe and the Forest to develop a partnership to restore land, especially through road removal. Laura just finished the first phase of the project and we hope to hire a second intern, a Native American, to complete the next phase. We were also fortunate this summer to work with Sonya Germann, who collected data on wildlife use on removed roads on the Flathead National Forest. Sonya is conducting this research as part of her senior thesis for her undergraduate degree. She’ll be analyzing the data with Staff Scientist Adam Switalski and University of Montana Wildlife Biology Professor Kerry Foresman. Thanks to all three of our interns for investing their summer time, we’re delighted to have their assistance. Many thanks, too, to Jess Bernard for volunteering with us this summer and helping out with numerous mailings, filing and other things. In addition to interns, we have another new face in our office. In mid-June, Program Assistant Kiffin Hope left Wildlands CPR to move into campaign consulting work. In early August, Cathy Adams joined our staff to take his place. Cathy has worked on native prairie restoration and office management. We’re pleased to have her on board and she’s rapidly getting our office back into shape since Kiffin left. Welcome Cathy! Finally, many thanks to the, 444 S, Lazar, Maki, Weeden, and Wilburforce foundations for generous grants to support our work. In addition, we want to give a special thanks to the B-Bar Ranch in Emigrant, Montana, near Yellowstone National Park. For the third year in a row, they’ve hosted our annual board and staff retreat, and we can’t imagine a more productive or beautiful place! Speaking of which, the B-Bar will host two wildlife-viewing vacations in 2006 in conjunction with Wild Things Unlimited. Wildlands CPR will receive a donation if you sign up for one of these wildlife vacations, so checkout the adjacent column, or visit our website at wildlandscpr.org for more details.

22

E

xperience a wildlife paradise and participate in important research with renowned wildlife biologists Steve Gehman and Betsy Robinson of Wild Things Unlimited (WTU). Participants will stay at and have exclusive use of B Bar Ranch, located just north of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) in the spectacular Tom Miner Basin. In addition to the wonders of the Basin, participants will take several trips from the ranch into Yellowstone Park to observe wildlife in the Park’s magnificent Northern Range. Tom Miner Basin is a place of exceptional beauty and provides precious habitat for most forms of wildlife found in neighboring YNP, including grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines and lynx. You will participate in early morning and evening observation sessions, as well as day hikes, and record data related to locations and activities of wildlife such as bears, wolves, elk, moose, mountain goats and bighorn sheep. Your Guides Steve Gehman and Betsy Robinson have been living and working as wildlife biologists in the Northern Rockies for a combined 34 years. They founded Wild Things Unlimited in 1997 to conduct wildlife research that was not being accomplished by other entities, and to implement wildlife education programs. 2006 Dates February 14-18 (6 days/5 nights), price $1575 per person. May 22-28 (7 days/6 nights), price $1795 per person. Special Note Of these fees, $200 will be donated to Wildlands CPR, if you let WTU know that you heard about the offer from us. For more information Wild Things Unlimited 406-522-9825, [email protected], www. wildthingsunlimited.org B Bar Ranch 406-848-7729, [email protected], www.bbar. com

Photo by J. Schmidt; courtesy of National Park Service.

W

ildlands CPR has been hopping with interns this summer, and also some stellar volunteers. In June, Gordon Willson Naranjo joined us for six weeks to help with an off-road vehicle outreach project. He developed a survey that we sent to approximately 1,000 people who had commented on the Forest Service’s national off-road vehicle rule. We’ve been delighted by the response, and we now have a better sense of how individuals want to help out with local travel planning. We’re in the process of connecting those individuals with the local groups.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Join Wildlands CPR Today!

We’ve made joining Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before. Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program • Reducing Overhead

• Making Your Gift Easier

Monthly giving puts your contribution directly into action and reduces our administrative costs. The savings go to restoring wildlands and building a more effective network.

Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your credit card or bank statement will contain a record of each gift; we will also send a year-end tax receipt for your records.

• Our Promise To You You maintain complete control over your donation. To change or cancel your gift at any time, just write or give us a call.

Name Phone Street Email

City, State, Zip

Type of Membership:

Individual/Family

Organization

Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Credit Card Pledge

$10/Month (minimum)

$20/Month

Payment Option #2: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account other

Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express Credit Card Number: _________________________________

$5/Month

$10/Month

$20/Month

other

I/we authorize Wildlands CPR to deduct the amount indicated above from my checking account once per month.

Signature

CSC Number: ________________ *(see below) Expiration date: _____________________________ Signature: __________________________________________ * The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of a credit card (usually in the signature field).

Thank you for your support! The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confidential. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.

NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual membership donation ($30 standard membership, or more), please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your check to the address below. Please send this form and your payment option to: Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807 23

Summer along the Rocky Mountain Front, Montana. Photo by Dan Funsch.

Non-profit Organization US POSTAGE PAID MISSOULA MT, 59801 PERMIT NO. 569

The world is its own quiet engine, alive and patient as sunrise, waiting for each of us to take a few steps away from the road. And hear it. — Phil Condon A Road Runs Through It, (in press)

The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper with soy-based ink.